by cheeseman 9 Replies latest watchtower bible
I've often read Jesus couldn't have been in the wilderness and at this wedding at the same time, so what's going on here?
Is there a case for a real contradiction?
Or is it really just misunderstanding the scriptures?
I was trying to find a decent debate about it on the 'net but I didn't get very far.
Anyone know of an exhaustive critique which is fair to both sides?
Or, if you know all the ins and outs could someone lay it out for me?
Thanks in advance!
Thing is that John's Gospel is not strongly "historical" gospel. So order of events in John are ordered not historically but "spiritually". Or may be I don't understand what condtradiction you refer to!
I've often read Jesus couldn't have been in the wilderness and at this wedding at the same time
I've often read Jesus couldn't have been in the wilderness and at this wedding at the same time
Maybe the wedding was in the wilderness ... it's not unusual to have a wedding in an exotic site. Or maybe a wilderness theme. You know how young couples can be.
Rub a Dub
Hi Shazard, welcome to the forum!
The book has been badly reordered. The Samaritan at the well story, the wedding and the Nobleman with the sicj son stories were separated with material from different settings. This creates a whole lot of traveling back and forth, notice 4:45 has Jeus doing miracles att he Feast before he goes there in chapter 5. I have to fly for now.
I had some sucess, ignoring the possibility of there being a contridiction, and set out to find proof of my own ignorance in the matter, thereby growing much wiser by proving "I" was "right" , "I" was wrong. I have accepted that Jesus is perfect, and I am not. Therefore any "mistakes" I find, are evidence of my own ignorance in the matter. I am not very content with remaining ignorant either. If it is there, I want to "discover" it. Then I want to share it with everyone
Well, it looks like John states that Jesus went to the wedding at Cana three days after his baptism:
"On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding." - John 2:1-2
While both Matthew and Mark state he immediately went to the wilderness, where he stayed for 40 days:
"Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry." - Matthew 4:1-2
"At once the Spirit sent him out into the desert, and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him." - Mark 1:12-13
The gospel of John is structured by a rhythm of weeks and signs. The first week is the beginning of Jesus' ministry (1:19-2:11), in which he is revealed as the Messiah and it culminates on the seventh day with the miracle at Cana, the first of Jesus' seven signs. Thus, the first day of the first week is in 1:19-28, the second day is v. 29-34, the third day is v. 35-42, the fourth day is v. 43-51, and then "three days later" in 2:1 Jesus attended the wedding at Cana. Then the last week of Jesus' ministry is the week of the passion (11:55-19:42), and these two weeks are bridged by the seven "signs" that Jesus performs, starting at the wedding of Cana and ending with the resurrection of Lazarus (2:1-11:54). The passion week is then followed by the week of the resurrection and the appearances to the disciples (20:1-29).
Leolaia I've really tried to get behind Brown's proposed structure for these opening chapters, but just can't. At best it may be the forced structure of the redactor. The scene shifts are too violent, the interjected explanations too obvious. We've discussed the wedding scene at length before have you changed your opinion about the groom? Seeing Genesis' creative week here may be seeing too much. Yes the opening words (in the beginning) are clearly a reference to Genesis but hearing the word "woman" in the wedding scene as refering to Eve (as Brown does I believe) seems a bit strained especially if she is his mother not a lover. Besides I'm not sure that "on the third day" should read "on the third day after that". Just what structure can we draw from the subsequent chapters and counting of days? There isn't one that I've ever heard. "two days", "not many days" "on the morrow" it seems to be simply narrative device.
